Julia Bryan, Ph.D.

, is an
assistant professor,
Department of School
Psychology and
Counselor Education,
The College of William
and Mary,
Williamsburg, VA.
Cheryl HolcombMcCoy, Ph.D., is an
assistant professor,
Department of
Counseling and
Personnel Services,
University of Maryland
at College Park. E-mail:
Jbryan@umd.edu,
Ch193@umail.umd.edu

School Counselors Perceptions of

Their Involvement in SchoolFamily-Community Partnerships
This study investigated school counselors perceptions
about their involvement in nine school-family-community (SFC) partnership programs and barriers to
their involvement in such partnerships. A random
sample of 72 school counselors in South Carolina public schools were asked to rate the importance and
degree of their involvement related to nine SFC partnerships. The study revealed that the participants perceived their involvement in SFC partnerships as very
important and significant relationships were found
between school counselors perceptions of importance of
their involvement in partnerships and barriers to that
involvement. Counselors varied in some of their perceptions and practices in the nine partnership programs by school level (i.e., elementary, middle, high
school).

chool-family-community (SFC) partnerships are

collaborative initiatives or relationships that
actively involve school personnel, parents, families, and community members and organizations as
equal and mutual partners in the planning, coordinating, and implementing of programs and activities
at home, at school, and in the community to help
increase the academic, emotional, and social success
of students (Davies, 1996; Epstein, 1992; Swap,
1993). This article describes a study that explored
school counselors perceptions about their involvement in SFC partnerships.

RELEVANT LITERATURE
In 1997, the United States Congress thought parent
involvement and partnerships important enough to
include them in a revised list of National Education
Goals known as Goals 2000. This federal legislation
called for the development of school partnerships
with families and community groups. Goal 8 of the
National Education Goals encouraged schools to
promote partnerships that will increase parental
involvement and participation by the year 2000
(U.S. Department of Education, 1997).
Many authors have suggested that SFC partner-

162

ASCA | PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL COUNSELING

ships are one of the protective factors that foster

educational resilience in at-risk children (Benard,
1995; Christenson & Sheridan, 2001; Epstein,
1995; Walsh, Howard, & Buckley, 1999).
Educational reform over the past decade has even
focused on school-community connections, homeschool collaboration, or school-family-community
partnerships as a means to helping youngsters
achieve (Christenson & Conoley, 1992; Davies,
1991; Epstein, 1992; Merz & Furman, 1997;
Ritchie, & Partin, 1994; Swap, 1992). These SFC
partnerships have been evidenced through local governance models which include parents and community members in school governance, (e.g., site-based
management); through parent and community
involvement and volunteer programs (e.g., parents
and community members as teacher-aides, mentors,
and volunteers in the school); and through schoollinked services (or interagency collaboration), which
involve a number of approaches to linking social
services agencies with schools in order to improve
services to children (Merz & Furman).
An extensive review of the literature revealed that
there are nine SFC partnership programs frequently
found in schools. These nine partnership programs
include:
1.Mentoring programs (Benard, 1995; Christiansen,
1997)
2.Parent centers (Comer, Haynes, Joyner, & BenAvie, 1996)
3.Family/community members as teachers aides
(Epstein, 1995)
4.Parent and community volunteer programs
(Gherke, 1998)
5.Home visit programs (Christiansen, 1997; Cole,
Thomas, & Lee, 1988)
6.Parent education programs (Christiansen, 1997;
Ritchie, & Partin, 1994)
7.School-business partnerships (Dedmond, 1991)
8.Parents and community members in site-based
management (Walsh et al., 1999)
9.Tutoring programs (Merz & Furman, 1997).

The emergence of SFC partnerships has also redefined the role of many school professionals, including school counselors (Adelman, 2002; Bemak,
2000; Taylor & Adelman, 2000). School counselors
are being called on to take active roles in partnerships and to be part of the efforts to find effective
and innovative ways to develop them (Christiansen,
1997; Keys, Bemak, Carpenter, & King-Sears, 1998;
Lockhart & Keys, 1998). Since school counselors
are seen as having potential for leadership in educational reform and as advocates of student success, it
is suggested that school counselors promote educational reform through leadership in partnerships
between school, families, and communities (Bemak;
Colbert, 1996; Dedmond, 1991; House & Hayes,
2002).
This study provides valuable information for
counselor educators and school counseling professionals as they focus more on SFC partnerships. In
spite of the growing literature written about SFC
partnerships and the prescribed roles for school
counselors in SFC partnerships, no primary research
could be found addressing the perceptions, roles, or
involvement of the school counselor in relation to
these SFC partnerships. In providing empirical data
to address these questions, this study fills a gap in
the research.
This study investigated school counselors perceptions about their involvement in nine school-familycommunity partnership programs (e.g., mentoring,
volunteer programs, tutoring, parent education) and
barriers to their involvement in those partnerships.
The primary research questions were as follows:
1.Overall, what are school counselors perceptions
regarding school counselor involvement in SFC
partnerships?
2.What are school counselors perceptions regarding school counselors playing a major role in nine
types of SFC partnerships?
3.What are school counselors perceptions regarding the importance of nine types of SFC partnerships in their schools?
4.What are school counselors perceptions regarding the importance of their role in nine types of
SFC partnerships in their schools?
5.How willing are school counselors to be involved
in nine types of SFC partnerships?
6.What barriers hinder school counselors involvement in SFC partnerships?

METHOD
Participants
A sample of 300 school counselors was randomly
drawn from South Carolinas State Department of
Educations complete listing of school counselors in

South Carolinas public schools by stratified sampling. There were a total of 1,641 school counselors
in South Carolina: 542 high school counselors, 714
elementary school counselors, and 385 middle or
junior high counselors. To enable the strata or subgroups to be compared and to ensure proportional
representation, the researcher carried out proportional stratified sampling with sample sizes chosen so
that the smallest was large enough to permit meaningful comparisons. Within each school level (elementary, middle, and high), the number of counselors chosen was proportional to the representation
of each of these subgroups within the entire state
sample pool. The sample was stratified by randomly
selecting 33% or 99 high school counselors, 44% or
132 elementary school counselors, and 23% or 69
middle or junior high school counselors.
There was a response rate of 25% with 75 surveys
being returned. Only 72 or 24% were usable. Of the
72 participants, 86% were females and 12.5 % were
male. The state director of guidance reported that
this was representative of the school counselor population in the state. Compared to the population of
South Carolinas school counselors, 37.5% of the
respondents worked in elementary schools compared to 44% in the total population, 26.4% worked
in middle schools compared to 23% in the total population, and 26.4% worked in high schools compared to 33% in the total population.
Instrumentation
Survey development. No survey currently exists to
assess school counselors perceptions about their
partnership roles and practices. Therefore, a survey
was designed (for additional information rgarding
the surveys design, please contct the authors). After
a thorough review of the literature, a focus group
with three school counselors and two counselor
educators was implemented. The focus group met to
discuss issues related to school counselors role in
SFC partnerships. The survey was then constructed
and piloted on ten masters level and doctoral level
counseling students who were currently school
counselors. Feedback was given regarding question
clarity, comprehensiveness, and acceptability. The
pilot study confirmed that the survey had face and
content validity. After revisions were made, the final
draft of the survey was used for this study.
The final survey consists of four parts: the first
part elicits demographic data; the second part concerns school counselors perceptions about the
importance of SFC partnership programs in their
schools and the importance of school counselor
involvement in nine SFC partnership programs; the
third part concerns school counselors perceptions
of the degree to which six barriers hinder their
involvement in partnerships and of their willingness

Counselors at all
school levels
perceived it as
important that
counselors should
play major roles in
partnerships.

7 : 3 F E B R UA R Y 2 0 0 4 | A S C A

163

Elementary school
counselors
perceived the nine
school-familycommunity
partnerships to be
more important in
their schools than
did high school
counselors.

164

to be involved in partnership programs; and the final

part was a section for feedback so that counselors
could offer any additional comments. Below is a
description of the first three parts of the survey.
Demographic data. This section of the survey
consists of ten items that obtained information
about years of school counselor experience, gender,
highest degree earned, accreditation of graduate
school program, counselors ethnic background,
school setting in which counselor works, type of
school, community setting, percentage of students
on free or reduced lunch, and percentages of each
ethnic category of students. Years of experience was
grouped into five categories: 15 years, 610 years,
1115 years, 1620 years, and over 20 years. School
setting had three levels: elementary, middle or junior high, and high school. Community type had
three levels: urban, rural, and suburban.
Perceptions about the importance of counselor
involvement in partnerships. The questions in this
section of the survey asked participants to rate (1)
the importance of school counselor involvement in
partnerships, (2) the importance of counselors
involvement in nine SFC partnership programs, (3)
the importance of these nine SFC partnership programs in their schools, and (4) the importance of
their personal role in these nine SFC partnership
programs. Question one, a measure of the overall
importance of school counselor involvement in partnerships, consisted of no sub-items. This question
asked, In your opinion how important is it that
school counselors be involved in school-family-community partnerships? Questions two, three, and
four each have nine sub-items related to the importance of nine partnership programs. These sub-items
were measured on a Likert scale from 1 to 5 with 1
= not important, 2 = rarely important, 3 = important, 4 = very important, and 5 = exceptionally
important. For example, question two asked, In
your opinion, how important is it that school counselors are involved in these SFC partnerships? (a)
mentoring programs, (b) parent center, (c) family/community members as teachers aides, (d) volunteer program for family/community members,
(e) home visitor programs, (f) parent education programs, (g) school-business partnerships, (h) parent/family member on management teams/councils, and (i) tutoring program. Similarly, the subitems were the same for questions three and four.
Question three asked: In your opinion, how important are the following partnership activities in your
school? Question four asked participants, In your
opinion, how important is your involvement in the
SFC partnerships which exist in your school?
Perceptions about school counselors involvement in partnerships. Two of the questions in this
sections asked participants to rate (a) the extent to

ASCA | PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL COUNSELING

which six barriers hindered their involvement in

school-family-community partnerships and (b) their
willingness to be involved in nine partnership programs. These questions were measured on a 5 point
Likert scale with 1 = not at all, 2 = infrequently, 3 =
frequently, 4 = very frequently, and 5 = all of the
time. Question one had six sub-items each corresponding to a barrier that hindered school counselor
involvement in school-family-community partnerships. Counselors were asked to rate the degree of
hindrance caused by each of the six barriers. For
example, question one asked, In your opinion, to
what extent do these barriers keep you from being
involved in school-family-community partnerships?
(a) lack of time, (b) lack of opportunity, (c) too
many counselor responsibilities, (d) lack of school
policy, (e) inadequate training, (f) not consistent
with school counselors role.
Question two measured the extent to which
school counselors are willing to be involved in nine
partnership programs. This question asked: In your
opinion, to what extent are you willing to get
involved in these types of partnerships? Similar to
questions two, three, and four in the previous section of the survey, the nine partnership programs
made up the sub-items for question 2 in this section.
This study indicated that the internal consistency or
Cronbachs coefficient alpha for the survey is .95
indicating satisfactory reliability.
Procedures
The survey was mailed to 300 (n = 300) school
counselors in South Carolina along with a cover letter and a self-addressed stamped envelope. A definition of school-family-community partnerships was
provided along with directions for completion of the
survey. In the cover letter, participants were informed
of the anonymity, volunteer nature of the study, and
that returning the completed survey indicated their
consent. No follow-up was done due to lack of funding. Seventy-two usable (24% return rate) surveys
were returned. A power analysis revealed that this
sample size resulted in a power of .70 and was sufficient to detect large effect sizes or differences or differences at the .05 level of significance.

DATA ANALYSIS
For the first part of survey, questions two through
four, school counselors were compared across school
level (between-subjects variable) and across nine
partnership programs (within-subjects variable). The
individual sub-items are the within-subject measures
in the three split-plot analyses of variance (SPANOVA) used to compare school counselors level of perceived importance for each of the nine partnership
programs.

For the purpose of correlational analysis, the subitems for each question were summed to provide
total measures of importance. A Pearsons correlation was performed on summed scales to determine
if there is a significant correlation between perceptions of the importance of counselors personal role
in partnerships and perceived importance of partnerships in the school.
Individual sub-items were the within-subject
measures in the two split-plot analyses of variance
(SPANOVA) used to examine mean differences in
school counselors perceptions about barriers and
their willingness to be involved in partnerships.
School counselors were compared across school
level (between-subjects variable) on each of the six
barriers in question one and nine partnership programs in question two.
Pearsons correlations were conducted on
summed scales of questions one and two along with
the summed scale of question four in previous section of the survey. This was done to determine
whether there is a significant inter-correlation
between counselors perceptions of the degree of
hindrance caused by barriers, perceptions of the
importance of counselors personal role in partnerships, and perceptions of the importance of partnerships in the school.

RESULTS
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and five
split-plot analyses of variance (SPANOVA) were
conducted to answer the questions concerning differences in school counselors perceptions of importance and involvement by school level across nine
partnership programs and six barriers. The HuynhFeldt correction was used to determine the F-value
for the within-subject variables. To examine significant main effects for school level, programs, and barriers, pairwise comparisons were conducted. Type I
error was controlled for by using the Bonferroni
method. No significant interaction effects were
found for any of the SPANOVAs. Some Pearsons
correlations were also conducted to determine the
relationship between counselors perceptions of the
degree of hindrance caused by barriers, perceptions
of the importance of counselors personal role in
partnerships, and perceptions of the importance of
partnerships in the school.
Research Questions Results
Overall, what are school counselors perceptions
regarding school counselor involvement in SFC
partnerships? Overall, the participants rated school
counselor involvement as very important in schoolfamily-community partnerships, M = 4.27, SD = .75,
N = 72. A one-way ANOVA revealed that school

counselors did not vary by school level in their perceived importance of school counselor involvement
in partnerships, F = 3.07, p = .054.
What are school counselors perceptions
regarding school counselors playing a major role
in nine SFC partnerships? School counselors did
not differ by school level in the perceived importance of school counselors playing major roles in the
nine school-family community partnerships, F (2,
62) = .322, p = .726. Therefore, counselors at all
school levels perceived it as important that counselors should play major roles in partnerships. The
means and standard errors for the between-subjects
variable and school level are found in Table 1.
However, there were significant differences in perceived importance of school counselor involvement
among the nine partnership programs, F (8,492) =
14.982, p = .000. Means, standard deviations and
results of post hoc comparisons for the nine partnership programs are given in Table 2.
What are school counselors perceptions regarding the importance of nine SFC partnerships
in their schools? School counselors differed significantly by school level in their perceptions of the
importance of partnerships in their own school, F
(2, 62) = 3.932, p = .025. Elementary school counselors perceived the nine school-family-community
partnerships to be more important in their schools
than did high school counselors (see Table 1). There
was also a significant effect for program, F (8, 466)
= 13.794, p = .000. Perceived importance of the
nine partnership programs varied significantly. Table
3 presents the means, standard deviations, and results
of the pairwise comparisons for each program.
What are school counselors perceptions
regarding the importance of their role in nine
SFC partnerships in their schools? School counselors differed by school level in their perceptions of
the importance of their role in school-family-community partnerships, F (2, 62) = 4.321, p = .018.
Elementary school counselors perceived their roles
to be more important than high school counselors
(see Table 1). There was also a significant effect for
program (see Table 4). Counselors differed in the
perceived importance of their role across the nine
partnership programs.
As a post hoc analysis, the relationship between
school counselors perceived importance of their
role in the nine partnership programs and their perceived importance of the nine partnership programs
in their schools was explored. The results indicated
that there was a significant positive correlation
between these two variables, r (72) = .752, p < .001.
How willing are school counselors to be
involved in nine SFC partnerships? There were no
significant differences by school level in willingness
to be involved in partnerships (see Table 1).

School counselors
across all school
levels reported that
too many counselor
responsibilities and
lack of time most
frequently
hindered their
involvement in
school-familycommunity
partnerships.

7 : 3 F E B R UA R Y 2 0 0 4 | A S C A

165

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Standard Errors and Analysis of Variance Results of
Between-Subjects Effect for School Level on Eight Dependent Measures
Measure

Total
(N = 65)

Elementary
(n = 27)

Middle
(n = 19)

High
(n = 19)

ANOVA
F (2, 62)a

Perceived importance
M
by school counselors of SD
their involvement in
school-family-community
partnerships overall

4.27
0.75

0.75
0.50

4.49
0.73

0.50
0.95

4.26

Perceived importance
M
of counselor involvement SE
in school-familycommunity partnerships

3.40
0.10

3.50
0.15

3.33
0.18

3.37
0.18

.322

Perceived importance
of partnerships in the
school

M
SE

3.26
0.11

3.63a
0.16

3.21
0.19

2.93a
0.19

3.932*

Perceived importance
M
of counselors role in
SE
school-family-community
partnership programs

2.92
0.10

3.23a
0.16

3.02
0.19

2.52a
0.19

4.321*

Perceived degree of
hindrance by barriers
to involvement in
partnerships

M
SE

2.99
0.08

2.83a
0.12

2.78b
0.14

3.34a,b
0.14

5.423**

Willingness to be
involved in
partnerships

M
SE

3.25
0.10

3.30
0.16

3.12
0.19

0.360

3.33
0.19

Note. Means in a row sharing subscripts are significantly different. For all measures, higher means indicate higher scores.
aThis is the F statistic for the between-subject variable in the split-plot analysis of variance (SPANOVA) conducted for each measure. Results for the within-subject effects are presented in other tables.
*** p < .001. ** p < .01. *p < .05.

However, there was a significant within-subjects

effect for program, F (8, 419) = 11.810, p = .000.
Table 5 presents the means and standard deviations
by program type and the results of the post hoc
comparison of means.
What barriers hinder school counselors
involvement in SFC partnerships? There were significant differences found by school level in relation
to school counselors perceptions about the barriers
that hinder their involvement in school-family-community partnerships, F (2, 62) = 5.423, p = .007.
High school counselors perceived a significantly
higher level of barriers than either middle school
counselors or elementary school counselors (see
Table 1).There were significant differences in the

166

ASCA | PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL COUNSELING

perceptions of the degree to which the six barriers

hindered involvement in partnerships, F (5, 299) =
67.573, p =.000. School counselors across all school
levels reported that too many counselor responsibilities and lack of time most frequently hindered their
involvement in school-family-community partnerships. Means and standard deviations and results of
pairwise comparisons using the Bonferroni approach
are reported in Table 5.

DISCUSSION
There are a number of limitations that one must pay
attention to in interpreting the results of this study.
The self-report nature of this study may be influ-

Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations and SPANOVA Results for Within-Subjects Effect of
Importance Ratings of Counselor Involvement in Nine Partnership Programs
Program

SD

Post hoc

3.99
3.52
3.02

0.80
0.99
1.02

1 > 3, 4, 5, 7, 9

3.28
3.05
3.88
3.32
3.51

1.00
0.96
0.93
1.16
0.95

4 < 1, 6
5 < 1, 6
6 > 3, 4, 5, 9
7<1

3.15

1.12

9 < 1, 6

SPANOVA F (8, 492) = 14.982***

1. Mentoring programs
2. Parent centers
3. Family/community members as
teachers aides
4. Volunteer programs
5. Home visitor programs
6. Parent education programs
7. School-business partnerships
8. Parent/family members on
management teams
9. Tutoring programs

3 < 1, 6

Note. A SPANOVA was conducted with school level as the between-subjects variable and program as the within-subjects variable. The results of the within-subject effect are presented here. Adjustments were made for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni method. The level of significance used was p = .001.

Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations and Split-plot ANOVA Results for Within-Subjects
Effect of Importance Ratings of Nine Partnership Programs in the School
Program

SD

Post hoc

3.54
94
2.84

1.24
1.38
1.13

1 > 3, 5 .
2 < 6, 7, 9
3 < 1, 6, 7, 8, 9

3.32
2.72
3.51
3.64
3.60

1.21
1.16
1.09
1.12
0.98

5 < 1, 6, 7, 8, 9
6 > 2, 3, 5
7 > 2, 3, 5
8 > 3, 5

3.60

1.09

9 > 2, 3, 5

SPANOVA F (8, 466) = 13.794***

1. Mentoring programs
2. Parent centers
3. Family/community members as
teachers aides
4. Volunteer programs
5. Home visitor programs
6. Parent education programs
7. School-business partnerships
8. Parent/family members on
management teams
9. Tutoring programs

Note. A SPANOVA was conducted with school level as the between-subjects variable and program as the within-subjects variable. The results of the within-subject effect are presented here. Adjustments were made for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni method. The level of significance used was p = .001.

enced by response bias caused by counselors wanting to appear competent and to be seen as engaging
in professionally desirable behavior related to schoolfamily-community partnerships. Response style and
honesty of the respondents will affect the validity of
the information received to some extent. Another
limitation is that the participants in the study came
from the state of South Carolina only. This limits the
generalizability of the findings since results may be
representative of the perspectives of school coun-

selors in South Carolina only. Attempts to generalize

results further a field should be done with caution
since one cannot assume that the sample in this study
is representative of other populations outside of
South Carolina. In addition, non-response bias may
have resulted from the extremely low return rate of
24%. It is possible that only school counselors with
school-family-community partnership programs in
their schools may have responded to the survey.
Nevertheless, this study is the first attempt to pro7 : 3 F E B R UA R Y 2 0 0 4 | A S C A

167

Table 4. Means, Standard Deviations and Split-plot ANOVA Results for Within-Subjects
Effect of Importance Ratings of Counselors Personal Role in Nine Partnership Programs
Program

SD

Post hoc

3.40
2.75
2.45

1.24
1.24
1.06

1 > 2, 3, 5
2 < 1, 6
3 < 1, 4, 6, 7, 8,9

2.96
2.50
3.41
3.00
3.16

1.16
1.18
1.18
1.15
1.15

4>3
5 < 1, 6, 8
6 > 2, 3, 5
7>3
8 > 3, 5

2.98

1.29

9>3

SPANOVA F (8, 432) = 10.106***

1. Mentoring programs
2. Parent centers
3. Family/community members as
teachers aides
4. Volunteer programs
5. Home visitor programs
6. Parent education programs
7. School-business partnerships
8. Parent/family members on
management teams
9. Tutoring programs

Note. A SPANOVA was conducted with school level as the between-subjects variable and program as the within-subjects variable. The results of the within-subject effect are presented here. Adjustments were made for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni method. The level of significance used was p = .001.

Table 5. Means, Standard Deviations and Split-plot ANOVA Results for Within-Subjects
Effect of Degree of Willingness to be Involved in Nine Partnership Programs
Program

SD

Post hoc

3.75
3.34
2.57

1.00
1.06
1.16

1 >3, 5
2>6
3 < 1, 2, 4, 6, 8

3.15
3.00
3.80
3.17
3.32

1.13
1.24
0.99
1.24
1.16

4<3
5 < 1, 6
6 > 3, 5

3.22

1.29

SPANOVA F (8, 419) = 11.810***

1. Mentoring programs
2. Parent centers
3. Family/community members as
teachers aides
4. Volunteer programs
5. Home visitor programs
6. Parent education programs
7. School-business partnerships
8. Parent/family members on
management teams
9. Tutoring programs

8 >3

Note. A SPANOVA was conducted with school level as the between-subjects variable and program as the
within-subjects variable. The results of the within-subject effect are presented here. Adjustments were made
for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni method. The level of significance used was p = .001.

vide empirical data to address questions regarding

the perspectives and practices of school counselors
regarding school-family-community partnerships.
Therefore, it will provide a basis for future research
on the topic. This study revealed that school counselors regardless of school level consider it very
important that they be involved in school-familycommunity partnerships and that they play major
roles in such partnerships. On the other hand, elementary school counselors perceive partnership programs as being more important in their schools than

168

ASCA | PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL COUNSELING

high school counselors and perceive their present

roles in school-family-community partnerships as
more important than high school counselors.
Additionally, school counselors perceive the importance of their roles in some partnership programs as
more important than in others. Overall, the highest
mean levels of importance were attributed to mentoring and parent education programs regardless of
counselors work setting.
School counselors also differ by school level in
their perceptions of hindrance caused by barriers to

Table 6. Means, Standard Deviations and Split-plot ANOVA Results for Within-Subjects
Effect of Degree of Hindrance Caused by Six Barriers to Counselor Involvement in
Partnerships
Barrier

SD

Post hoc

SPANOVA F (5, 299) = 67.573***

1. Lack of time

3.98

0.84

1 > 2, 4, 5, 6

2. Lack of opportunity
3. Too many counselor responsibilities
4. Lack of school policy
5. Inadequate training
6. Not consistent with school
counselors role

2.67
4.26
2.49
2.05
2.33

1.09
0.82
1.22
1.02
1.12

2 < 1, 3
3 > 2, 4, 5, 6
4 < 1, 3
5 < 1, 3
6 < 1, 3

Note. A SPANOVA was conducted with school level as the between-subjects variable and program as the within-subjects variable. The results of the within-subject effect are presented here. Adjustments were made for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni method. The level of significance used was p = .002.

their involvement. High school counselors perceive

a higher level of hindrance than both elementary and
middle school counselors. However, counselors at all
levels perceive too many counselor responsibilities
and lack of time as being major hindrances to their
involvement in school-family-community partnerships. On average, school counselors at every school
level were frequently willing to be involved in partnership programs. However, they were more willing
to be involved in some types of programs than others. They expressed the highest mean levels of willingness to be involved in parent education and mentoring programs.
It is valuable to know that school counselors
believe their involvement in school-family-community partnerships to be very important given the
focus on school-family-community partnerships in
educational reform (Colbert, 1996; HolcombMcCoy, 2001). Since school counselors are being
called on to play major roles in school-family-community partnerships, it is important that they
endorse these partnerships as their perceptions will
likely influence their behavior.
The finding that elementary school counselors
perceive their personal roles in partnership programs
as more important than middle or high school counselors is supported by previous research. Teachers
and school psychologists in elementary schools have
been found to have higher levels of involvement in
school-family-community partnership activities
(Epstein & Dauber, 1991; Pelco, Ries, Jacobson, &
Melka, 2000). While overall there is more parent
involvement in elementary schools, research studies
have highlighted the importance of school-familycommunity partnerships in meeting the developmental needs of students at the middle and high
school levels (Epstein & Sanders, 2000).
Additionally, it is important to note that the sig-

nificant relationship between the perceived importance of counselors personal role in the partnership
programs and the perceived importance of these
partnership programs in their school is also supported by prior research in which elementary school
teachers reported stronger involvement of their
schools in school-family-community partnerships
(Epstein & Dauber, 1991). The higher level of
importance accorded to their roles in partnerships by
elementary school counselors when compared to
high school counselors in this study may be because
there is a higher level of involvement in these partnerships at the elementary school level. The more
their school is involved in partnerships, the more the
counselor may be involved in partnership programs,
thus viewing their roles in partnerships as more
important. Thus, school counselor involvement in
partnerships appears to be influenced by institutional culture and parent involvement practices related
to school-family-community partnerships.
Differences in reported levels of importance of
counselors partnership roles among elementary and
high school counselors did not result from differences in perceived importance of counselor involvement in partnerships. School counselors across all
levels consider counselor involvement in partnership
programs to be important. Additionally, it is clear
that high school counselors in this study are equally
willing to be involved in partnership programs when
compared to elementary and middle school counselors. It is noteworthy that high school counselors
perceive a higher level of barriers to their involvement in partnerships than elementary school counselors. It is also notable that counselors who perceive
partnerships to be less important in their schools and
perceive their role in partnerships as less important,
also perceive a higher degree of barriers to their
involvement in school-family-community partner7 : 3 F E B R UA R Y 2 0 0 4 | A S C A

169

ships. One reason that high school counselors may

accord less importance to their roles in partnership
programs is that they may be too overwhelmed by
their administrative and clerical duties to become
involved in partnerships to the extent that they think
school counselors should.

IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL

COUNSELORS AND FURTHER RESEARCH

The highest mean

levels of
importance were
attributed to
mentoring and
parent education
programs
regardless of
counselors work
setting.

Given the barriers that school counselors face to

their involvement in partnership programs, it is not
enough simply to train counselors in how to build
partnerships. Rather, in order to increase school
counselor involvement in school-family-community
partnerships, school counselor education programs
will need to also train counselors to advocate for
partnership programs, to devise strategies to overcome barriers, and to be catalyst for change in the
school system. This means that counselors will have
to be more proactive in defining their roles in the
school. This is important since the schools culture
related to partnerships appears to influence counselors perceptions of the importance of their roles in
these partnerships. Counselors must be trained to be
proactive in defining their own roles within the institutions so that they are not forced to abnegate
important functions such as collaboration in schoolfamily-community partnerships.
Regarding further research in this area, it would
be important to replicate this study with a national
representative study and a larger sample size to
determine if the differences and relationships found
in this study still hold. Qualitative research is needed to do an in-depth study of attitudes, beliefs,
events, and policies that influence school counselor
involvement in school-family-community partnerships. Such a study would provide valuable information for operationalizing measures that appear to
influence school counselor involvement in partnerships. These measures may then be used to further
investigate the relationships between perceptions,
training, and practice found in this study and to
determine the factors that influence school counselor collaboration in school-family-community
partnerships.
References
Adelman, H. S. (2002). School counselors and school reform:
New directions. Professional School Counseling ,5,
235248.
Bemak, F. (2000). Transforming the role of the counselor to
provide leadership in educational reform through collaboration. Professional School Counseling, 3, 323331.
Benard, B. (1995). Fostering resilience in children. Urbana, IL: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood
Education (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED386327).

170

ASCA | PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL COUNSELING

Christenson, S. L., & Conoley, J. C. (Eds.). (1992). Home-school

collaboration: Enhancing childrens academic and social
competence. Silver Spring, Maryland: National Association
of School Psychologists.
Christenson, S. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2001). Schools and families:
Creating essential connections for learning. New York: The
Guilford.
Christiansen, J. (1997). Helping teachers meet the needs of students at risk for school failure. Elementary School
Guidance and Counseling, 31, 204210.
Colbert, R. D. (1996). The counselors role in advancing school
and family partnerships. The School Counselor, 44,
100104.
Cole, S. M., Thomas, A. R., & Lee, C. C. (1988). School counselor
and school psychologist: Partners in minority family outreach. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and
Development, 16, 110116.
Comer, J. P., Haynes, N. M., Joyner, E. T., & Ben-Avie, M. (Eds.).
(1996). Rallying the whole village: The Comer process for
reforming education. New York: Teachers College.
Davies, D. (1991). Schools reaching out: Family, school, and
community partnerships for student success. Phi Delta
Kappan, 72, 376382.
Davies, D. (1996). Partnerships for student success: What we have
learned about policies to increase student achievement
through school partnerships with families and communities. Baltimore: Center on Families, Communities, Schools
and Childrens Learning. John Hopkins University.
Dedmond, R. M. (1991). Establishing, coordinating school-community partnerships. NASSP Bulletin, 75(534), 2835.
Epstein, J. L. (1992). School and family partnerships: Leadership
roles for school psychologists. In S. L. Christenson, & J. C.
Conoley (Eds.), Home-school collaboration: Enhancing childrens academic and social competence (pp. 1952).
Colesville, MD: National Association of School
Psychologists.
Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships:
Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76,
701712.
Epstein, J. L., & Dauber, S. L. (1991). School programs and teachers practices of parent involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. The Elementary School Journal,
91, 289305.
Epstein, J. L., & Sanders, M. G. (2000). Connecting home, school
and community: New directions for social research. In M.
Hallinan (Ed.), Handbook of sociology of education. New
York: Plenum.
Gherke, M. E. (1998). Home, school, community partnerships. In
J. M. Allen (Ed.), School counseling: New perspectives and
practices (pp. 121125). Greensboro, NC: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Counseling and Student Services.
Holcomb-McCoy, C. (2001). Examining urban school counseling
professionals perceptions of school restructuring activities.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED452451).
House, R. M., & Hayes, R. L. (2002). School counselors: Becoming
key players in school reform. Professional School
Counseling, 5, 249256.
Keys, S., & Bemak, F., Carpenter, S. L., & King-Sears, M. E. (1998).
Collaborative consultant: A new role for counselors serving at-risk youths. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 76, 123134.
Lockhart, E. J., & Keys, S. G. (1998). The mental health counseling role of school counselors. Professional School
Counseling, 1(4), 36.
Merz, C., & Furman, G. (1997). Community and schools: Promise
and paradox. New York: Teachers College.

Pelco, L. E., Ries, R. R., Jacobson, L., & Melka, S. (2000).

Perspectives and practices in family-school partnerships:
A national survey of school psychologists. School
Psychology Review, 29, 235250.
Ritchie, M. H., & Partin, R. L. (1994). Parent education and consultation activities of school counselors. The School
Counselor, 41, 165170.
Swap, S. M. (1992). Parent involvement and success for all children: What we know now. In S. L. Christenson, & J. C.
Conoley (Eds.), Home-school collaboration: Enhancing childrens academic and social competence (pp. 1952).
Colesville, MD: National Association of School
Psychologists.

Swap, S. (1993). Developing home-school partnerships. New

York: Teachers College.
Taylor, L., & Adelman, H. S. (2000). Connecting schools, families,
and communities. Professional School Counseling, 3,
298307.
U. S. Department of Education. (1997). Achieving the goals. Goal
8: Parent involvement and participation. Washington, DC:
Author.
Walsh, M. E., Howard, K. A., & Buckley, M. A. (1999). School counselors in school-community partnerships: Opportunities
and challenges. Professional School Counseling, 2,
349356.

7 : 3 F E B R UA R Y 2 0 0 4 | A S C A

171